Majority
p. 258330 Bleecker Street Corporation, Respondent, v. Mutual Tile Corporation, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (Argued October 26, 1932; decided November 22, 1932.) All persons interested in the subject of the suit and its
Albert P. Singman and Leo J. Linder for appellant.
p. 259result should be made parties, for the reason that it is the aim of equity to do complete justice and to settle the rights of all persons interested in the subject of the suit, thereby preventing further litigation between them. (Sherman v. Parrish, 53 N. Y. 483 ; Hubbard v. Eames, 22 Barb. 597 ; Turner v. Conant, 18 Abb. N. Cas. 160 ; Reid v. Vanderheyden, 5 Cow. 719 ; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige, 15; Williams v. Bankhead, 19 Wall. 563 ; Tonnelle v. Hall, 3 Abb. Pr. 205 ; Waring v. Waring, 3 Abb. Pr. 246 ; Osterhoudt v. Supervisors of Ulster, 98 N. Y. 239 .) . Unless the first mortgagee is made a party to the second mortgage foreclosure action the mechanic’s lienor will lose a substantial property right. (McDermott v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 232 N. Y. 336 .) New parties must be brought in only when a complete determination of the controversy cannot be had without their presence. (Chapman v. Forbes, 123 N. Y. 532 ; Walsh v. National Broadway Bank, 11 Misc. Rep. 249 ; 13 Misc. Rep. 3 ; Lester v. Seilliere, 50 App. Div. 239 ; Reimers v. Schmitt, 68 App. Div. 299 .)
Marcus Klein and Benjamin A. Hartstein for respondent.
As between the appellant, Mutual Tile Company, and the New York Title and Mortgage Company rights and priorities must obviously be ascertained and settled. Since its rights and interests are or may be involved in that settlement respondent should have an opportunity to be heard in the matter. The proper forum for the determination of all these equities and priorities is in this action. (McDermott v. Lawyers Mortgage Co., 232 N. Y. 336 , 349.)
The order should be reversed, with costs in all courts, and the motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Question No. 1 is not answered. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative.
Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien, Hubbs and Crouch, JJ., concur.
Order reversed, etc.
Cases cited
- Sherman v. Parish 53 N. Y. 483 p. 259
- Hubbard v. Eames 22 Barb. 597 p. 259
- Turner v. Conant 18 Abb. N. Cas. 160 p. 259
- Reid v. Venderheyden 5 Cow. 719 p. 259
- Williams v. Bankhead 19 Wall. 563 p. 259
- Tonnelle v. Hall 3 Abb. Pr. 205 p. 259
- Waring v. Waring 3 Abb. Pr. 246 p. 259
- Osterhoudt v. Board of Supervisors 98 N. Y. 239 p. 259
- P. T. McDermott, Inc. v. Lawyers Mortgage Co. 232 N. Y. 336 at 349 p. 259
- Chapman v. Forbes 123 N. Y. 532 p. 259
- Walsh v. National Broadway Bank 11 Misc. Rep. 249 p. 259
- Reimers v. Schmitt 68 App. Div. 299 p. 259